Eudaimonist

Not quite. I'm an atheist, but I'm also a metaphysical naturalist, cognitive realist, eudaimonist, libertarian, etc. I certainly have a belief system (a rational one), but qua atheist I simply don't have belief in divine beings.

MadMordigan

Perhaps the difference between the pantheistic (mystic) and the non-pantheistic atheist comes from the priority they assign to their experience to the subconcious?

My experience with the 'mystical' is pretty much limited to the martial arts. In the club where I study, we practice various meditation techniques, some for concentration, some for pattern breaking, some for awareness and some for relaxation. Mostly they are hypnotization, using verbal and concious stimulae to evoke a subconcious response.

For example, the instructor will syncronize the class's breathing (slow, deep breathing, with the audible exhalation becoming an almost musical rhythm), then give a suggestion they we each try to feel a 'circulation of energy' within our bodies. With practice, one can 'feel' some sort of motion within oneself, even though your body is at rest. The instructor will then suggest that we 'reach out' with this 'energy' and feel the circulation within our partner's body. If you concentrate on being relaxed (typical eastern double speak, but its the only way to describe it), one actually does 'feel' the 'energy' from another person. The experience is as if both your bodies are surrounded by cotton-battin, and your are each pressing against each other. The sensations seem very real, and in such a state one can 'feel' motion in your partner just as if you touching each other.

But even though I experience these sensations , I do not ascribe any reality to a 'life force'. The sensations I feel are, in reality, just a kinetic equivalent to an optical illusion. I believe that by manipulating the subconcious mind, we are simply fooling our brains into providing the tactile sensations we want to feel.

Now the mystics in our club (my instructor included), will disagree with this, and suggest that these experiences are equivalent to the sensations of an external reality. This is the fundamental error I see in mysticism in general. Even though they agree that they 'feel' exactly what they wanted to feel, they cannot accept that they are pulling the wool over their own eyes. To my mind, this is the conceit of mystics, that somehow if it is wierd, and we wish it to be true, then it must be true.

What the mystics and I agree with, however, is the awesome nature of these meditations. The fact that I recognize that these sensations are an illusion caused by my own mind do not make them less beautiful. No more so than the recognization that a movie is in reality just flickering shadows on a screen.

emotional

I don't feel the cosmos has intelligence of itself, at any rate not a planning, human sort of intelligence like we have. But the inherent power of matter to organize itself to form complex functional beings and mindful conscious entities like us is simply awesome. How the atoms combine into meaningful shapes without anyone telling them to do so just boggles the mind. This is greater and much more awing than any omnipotent intelligent creator!

See my article The Wonder of Nature where I write at length about this overwhelming, tremendous encompassing feeling that Nature inspires in me. It's simply GREAT! GREAT! If only you stop wishfulness, if only you swallow your pride and accept that the Universe was not created for you, then all this is utterly, ineffably GREAT! It's not too good, it's simply true!

Tinman

The ideas of pantheism are new to me, yet reading these posts and checking out the recommended websites makes me realize the attraction of some of this philosophy. For me it seems to be a matter of emphasis or acknowledgement rather than anything particularly new to the scientific atheist. Some of these attractions are:

1) A definition of one's perspective which is positively defined "pantheism" rather than negatively "atheist (i.e, non-theist).

2) It does not seem to feel the need to raise man to an unnaturally high place in the universe. These anthropomorphic tendencies seem to be at the heart of Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions.

3) A Transcendent Personality does not seem a necessity as any kind of Prime Mover.

4) It affirms the sense of wonder I feel about the intricacies of our universe. Despite our deep and growing understanding, however, it does not deny our profound ignorance. Perhaps the acknowledgement of this ignorance is part of the sense of awe we feel, without resorting to the supernatural to fill in the gaps. Just be content to know we don't know!

I wonder if I've got it wrong though. Any corrections from our resident Pantheists.

Bye the way, is the Nautilus shell the closest thing to a symbol of the Pantheist philosophy?-Cool!

TinMan

HelenM

Yeah but dev sweetheart there are Theists who feel this way about nature too...

I'm glad you do - very glad! - and I wish everyone did. But theists can. It's not something only non-theists or even non-Christians can do...

love
helen

emotional

Yes Helen, I agree with you, there are theists who have reverence towards nature. Problem is, following those feelings, they direct their reverence towards an invisible creator of nature instead of revering nature as the creator. To me, that's idolatry.

It spoils everything to think about the invisible creator behind the veil of nature; far better is to say there is no veil at all, nothing beyond nature, and that is the true Divine. Positing an occult creator behind the reality ruins the whole beauty of it.

(edited for fixing typos)

[ September 09, 2001: Message edited by: devnet ]

Amos

But reverence towards nature is not needed as much as understanding of nature. To understand nature one must be and feel united with nature which is the true divine. To be one with nature is also not to be outside of natureand so maybe the answer to Shakespeares riddle is "To be is not to be."

Amos

emotional

</STRONG>

In what sense do you mean "needed"? In the practical sense, reverence of nature isn't needed, nor is painting, music or any other activity beyond the basic survival functions (eating and the other things). But I don't know of any humans who can live that way. Reverence of nature doesn't mean "be natural, be only survivalist, like an animal", it means a feeling of astonishment towards the natural creativity - you and all entities around you.

</STRONG>

There are no rules for this. To each his own, and each one devises his own way of being and feeling united with nature. Going for long stays at isolated parks or meadows or forests at night and looking at the plants and the stars is my favoured way of doing it, but it may not be suitable for other people.

It's a bit more difficult in our frantic, technological world, but it's so fulfilling. I work in the computer field, I fill the larger part of the day with binary machines, with human creativity, so that after hours I have a great need to spend time with natural creations.

You meant "To be or not to be", right? For me, that is neither a question nor any choice. I didn't decide to be, it was forced upon me, and I'm trying to enjoy my stay as much as possible.

HelenM

I don't see why though...I mean, it's reasonable for you to say "for me it ruins it to posit an occult creator behind it" - but why must that necessarily be true for everyone else?

I like having someone to share it with, to whisper "thank you" to - to me that enhances the joy of it a lot like Proverbs 8 - that part about "I was rejoicing by his side"...I mean, you understand that shared joy of doing something as part of a team don't you - or even watching something and rejoicing with another over it...?

Isn't the real problem not that anyone would believe in a creator per se but the type of creator that many theists claim him to be?

I mean, what if he were...your best friend...?

When you were a theist, God was never your best friend?

To me that's the point...a Best Friend who stands behind all earthly best friends, who never has to 'force' authority because He is Authority. He just...is who He is. He is kewl. So I can look at the beauty of things and say "Neat, God!!!" and He says "yeah" and He's happy that I like those things...

If you never had that kind of God maybe you never really 'had' the real God...(with all due respect - which is a lot, dev )

love
helen

[ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

Amos

No sorry Devnet, I wrote: The answer to the riddle [To be or not to be] is "To be is not to be." It means that to be truly one with nature one cannot really be as an individual (or you would not be one with nature).

Amos

[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]